How can we understand McKenna propensity to feel persecuted? I think it’s best explained this way.

McKenna may well hold some truly moderate convictions–it’s hard to tell, because he has gotten quite good at weaseling his “answer” into something that is universally non-offensive. Whether moderate or not, what Rob Mckenna most certainly isn’t is non-partisan.

The worst kept secret among Olympia Republicans is that McKenna is a deeply partisan Republican. And, thanks to the weaselly answers, this fact is one of the best kept secrets from most Washingtonians.

For this reason, McKenna perpetually feel like the victim, always in danger of being trapped by the evil majority. And he isn’t going to go down easily.

What we are left with is a skeleton of a man who is caught in a perpetual cycle of self-spin. That Governor’s mansion is within his grasp, but he feels danger, and has a sense that his enemies are plotting against him….

Even when it is just a young woman, concerned about losing her reproductive rights, asking a simple question.

Publicly bashing your boss on Facebook usually isn’t a good idea — if you want to keep your job. And if you want to fast-track your termination, just post that you’re not going to follow your boss’s orders.

Roger Rabbit Commentary: He couldn’t get away with this working for a private company, and he can’t get away with it in the military service, either. For a military man to go around bleating like a carnival barker that he’s not going to follow his commander’s orders … well, that’s asking for it.

McKenna looks like the sort of skinny, pinched Irishman who became a priest in the old country. I certainly don’t see him downing several pints of Guinness and brawling with the likes of Bono and the Edge.

# 4: I’m a bit of mixed opinions on the issue, depending upon the specific facts. I don’t think a serviceman/woman surrenders their civil liberties, including their first amendment right to free speech, by virtue of being in the service. But there are limitations which apply beyond that of the general public.

They can question public policy, certainly. But they can’t broadcast a refusal to follow orders, which is at best insubordination, and in some expreme cases might be outright mutiny.

Where I have difficulty is in the middle, where a politician is in the chain of command and the member of the military wishes to express their views on their competence. A high-ranking military officer can be discharged for insubordination for such conduct. But a low-ranking enlisted man should have a bit more leeway in that department, as his comments are unlikely to affect the performance of others.

I say this in part because of the experiences in Vietnam, where in the initial years draftees too young to vote were assigned combat roles and threatened with imprisonment for anything less than complete and enthusiastic support for the war effort – especially when Congressmen, Senators, or TV cameras were nearby. In that situation, the country would have been better off if these young men had been allowed to freely express their opinions. By 1968, however, it was pretty clear to all that the draftees were going to say whatever they wanted to say (“What are they going to do – send me to Vietnam?”).

The accepted and traditional route for an officer to take is to simply resign and THEN voice their opinions. But an enlisted man has to serve out his tour of duty, which unfortunately under Bush II sometimes went on for years beyond his initial voluntary committment.

The case of the serviceman being discharged for expressing his intention to disobey orders is being trumpeted by the right wing as one of their own being persecuted by the Obama situation.

But when experienced generals kept asking the Secretary of Defense on what his plans were for Iraq AFTER the Iraqi army was defeated, his curt response was to shut up and threaten to dismiss the next person who came through that door wich such an inconvenient question.

He knows he can’t keep the right wing in line behind him and campaign as a centrist. So his plan is to keep quiet. He’s got the Seattle Times and some other media people in line with that strategy, they presume he’s a centrist and place the burden on others to prove otherwise.

So when anyone else asks an inconvenient question (not the link with #8 above, heh?), McKenna becomes agressive. He tries to intimidate young people. He insists that they turn off any recorders because he doesn’t want his answers recorded at all, unless and untill he gets to that point in the campaign where he’s in a carefully scripted environment.

But calling young people names and implying that they are unemployed if they question him, etc., is just being a jerk.

Which brings up the question – is he a moderate who occassionally acts like a jerk, or a jerk who manages to conceal himself as a moderate most of the time? I had a colleague at work like that once, and I wasted far too much time trying to answer that question. The short answer is that it doesn’t matter – he acted like a jerk often enough, and unpredictably enough, you had to assume he is a jerk all the time.

Asking a public official about public policy in policy isn’t an ambush or a set up. He could have given a simple, friendly, answer that said nothing much and directed her to his website. Public officials do that sort of thing all the time. But he didn’t. He attacked the woman.

So here’s what an “ambush” is: it’s when a politician is asked a legitimate question that doesn’t allow said politician to try to waffle and be all things to all people. The idea that asking someone running for governor about a piece of legislation that would be likely to cross his desk as governor is a setup of anything other than finding out what his intentions would be is bullshit. People might actually want to base their votes on his answer. His refusal to answer means his answer would have been “no” under sodium pentathol and his refusal to answer says that he knows this will lose him votes. So he should lose the exact same votes for not answering, only the Seattle Times will spin this like a gyroscope because, after all, he NEVER SAID HE WOULD VETO IT.

Which tells you both McKenna and the Times have nothing but contempt for voters.

@7 In addition to posting his stated intention to disobey orders, this guy also failed to comply with a directive from his superiors to include a disclaimer in his public rantings that his views were personal and not those of the Marine Corps. It was pretty egregious.

This guy stonewalled his commanders until they made good on their threat to discharge him. Apparently he didn’t believe they would do it. It appears they did it because nothing else got through to him. He was a loose cannon and the officers who made this decision certainly must have worried about his trustiworthiness in combat.

Stubborn lack of cooperation will get you in trouble in virtually any organization. This guy is no martyr, nor is he a poster boy for civil liberties. He’s simply an obstinate, immature, headstrong kid who decided to show the world nobody could tell him what to do.

He doesn’t want to be recorded for fear of being bushwacked? It would be funny if it wasn’t so hypocritical. How many cases has he presided over as AG that has involved secret audio and video recordings?

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.